The 'Holy' Royal Arch Degree's Secret Name for the God of 'the Craft' of Freemasonry

The Triangle is the Greek Letter "Delta"
Delta-Jah-Bul-On
Djahbulon

Diabolism

By Thomas E. WeirGrand High Priest, Maryland, USA

Some
churches are complaining today that Masonry is not compatible
with Christianity. An examination of the evidence suggests
that the question should really be, "Is the church compatible
with Christianity?" The question, honestly put, does not beg
an answer but suggests first that church history is too full
of instances of pride, cruelty and violence for the church to
cast the first stone. Secondly, it suggests that the
present controversy should never be reduced to an attack by
the church and a defense by Masonry.

When such
lines of battle are drawn, the roles expected of both sides
may become too rigid for the advancement of knowledge and
understanding. It must be stated at the outset that no
counterattack against Masonry's detractors is intended.
Religious bodies tend to be conservative. All bureaucracies,
including those of organized religion, tend more to preserve
the status quo than to pursue the goals for which the
institution was founded. Religious bodies are no more exempt
from this pattern that secular bureaucracies.

Therefore,
this essay should not be considered as a criticism of the
Roman Catholic Church. When there was no competition for the
universal Church except for a handful of heretics, there was
no need for the church to alter its opinion of itself or its
competitors. Dr. James M. Robinson, when at
Emory University, said that if the Roman Catholic Church
dispersed, one or more of the main line
Protestant denominations would rush to fill the need for a
conservator of traditional power and claims of the Church

Some
readers may remember instances when a dominant Protestant
church overshadowed life and values in its community. Admirers
of such churches argued then and argue now that the church's
dominance made a better community.

Nor
should the conclusion be drawn that the Roman Catholic Church
is singled out for anti-Masonic bias. Some American
denominations, such as the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod and
Free Methodists, have long-standing anti-Masonic biases. The
separation of the Free Methodist Church from the main body of
Methodism grew out of theMorgan affair.

We may
miss the point of the relationship of "the Church" and Masonry
if we limit our examination to these two bodies alone. Should
we not be asking how Masonry gets along with everyone else but
the Church and how theChurch gets along with everyone else but
the Masonic Order.

The
emergence of Masonry as a world movement came at a bad time
for the Roman Catholic Church. In the eighteenth century, when
the Premier Grand Lodge was founded and Masonry was spreading
like wildfire, the power of the Roman Catholic Church and its
political allies was perilously threatened. The Church had
long depended upon the power of Spain, with its Catholic
Majesties, and France,"the eldest daughter of the Church.
By 1737, when the Vatican first denounced Free-masonry, Spain
had passed her peak.

In a few
years, France and England would fight a bloody war to
determine who would sit on the Spanish throne. France had
suffered the first of a series of defeats at the hands of the
English. In Scotland, an attempt to seat the Catholic "Old
Pretender" (styled James III) on the British throne by force
of arms had failed. Even the Holy Roman Empire, a loose
confederation of German and Italian states and which has
been described by historians as neither holy, Roman or an
empire, was decaying and would shortly disintegrate.

On all
fronts, the Catholic Church was losing ground. It was
unbelievable, but the Jesuits were expelled from Spain in the
eighteenth century. In France, Gallicanism and Jansenism
undermined the power and authority of the Church. Reformed
churches had become reasonably secure in Protestant Europe not
many years earlier. Presbyterian order prevailed in Scotland
only in 1690.

The Thirty
Years War between Catholic and Protestant factions of the Holy
Roman Empire ended less than a hundred years earlier.
Therefore, the Catholic Church and its relationships with
individuals and organizations must be seen in the light of
world politics. It is therefore not surprising that the
expansion of Masonry was seen as a threat by the eighteenth
century Catholic Church.

A Grand
Lodge of Free and Accepted (i.e. operative and Speculative)
Masons, founded on principles of the brotherhood of man - all
men - and the Fatherhood of God introduced a new social
element that was an implicit challenge to the supremacy of the
Church in social matters. Although early Masonic ritual was
explicitly Christian, Masons did not acknowledge the Roman
Catholic Church as the only vehicle in which God might move
about His earth.

The
evidence also suggests that Masonry was much more involved in
politics in Mediterranean countries than expected or allowed
in modern English-speaking Lodges. The use of Masonry as a
political force may have been the most objectionable aspect of
the relationship between Lodge and Church. The Roman Church
had real reasons to fear Masonry in the eighteenth century.

From
its beginnings, Roman Catholicism was a politically based
church. We are all familiar with the story of Constantine and
his battle with Maxentius for control of the Roman Empire. As
his Army approached the Milvian Bridge, now in the suburbs of
Rome, Constantine saw a cross in the air and heard the motto,
"In This Sign Conquer" (In Hoc Signo Vinces). Constantine
became a Christian like his mother and organized the Church
like the Empire.

As there
was an Emperor to rule the Empire, so there was a Bishop (the
Bishop of Rome) to rule the Church. Consuls and proconsuls
ruled the territories into which the Empire was divided, just
as Archbishops and bishops ruled the territories of the
Church. When Constantine moved his court to Constantinople
(Byzantium), the power of the Pope was substantially
increased. His authority spilled over into secular politics.

The
temporal rulers, both the Emperors that followed Charlemagne
and the local feudal giants, held substantial sway over the
Church until the time of Pope Gregory VII, a German by the
name of Hildebrand, and the "Investiture Controversy." Until
then, the general practice was that Bishops would be chosen by
local rulers and the Pope notified. Gregory claimed the right
to invest Bishops with their "spiritualities and their
temporalities."

That is,
the Pope claimed the right to decide who would represent the
Church at York, not merely to agree to who empower the
representative of the King of England in the Cathedral of York
Minster. It was an important counter in the balance of power
between Emperor and Pope. Bishops wielded great secular power,
not just religious readership. For example, a great portion of
the actual land in Medieval London was taken up by
politically active Bishops and Abbots.

The
account books of the Bishop of Ely about 1400 suggest that the
expense of running a proper Bishop's seat of power in London
cost more than the stipends of the hundred priests who served
the parish churches in the City of London. An unneeded portion
of the Abbot of Hyde's residence was the Tabard Inn of
Canterbury Tales. Bishops and "mitered" abbots sat as the
third house of parliament. Even today, they are entitled to a
seat in the House of Lords.

Hildebrand was opposed by Henry IV. The most
memorable moment in the long battle was after Gregory
excommunicated Henry. The latter, dressed in sackcloth and
ashes, barefoot in the snow, pleaded for forgiveness before
the gates of the papal castle at Canossa. After the death of
both of these bullheaded Nordics, the Church gained a modest
but exceptionally important victory. The power of the
Church continued to grow until 1204, when Pope Innocent III
and the Fourth Lateran Council became virtual masters of
European politics.

Almost
exactly a hundred years later, the Church's power had so
fallen that the Pope and the curia were virtual prisoners of
the King of France and seemed more included to do his will
than God's. From 1378, the Church was fractured with Popes
claiming loyalty to Avignon, Pisa and Rome. In 1414, the
Council of Constance declared Popes John XXIII (Baldasarro
Cossa) and Benedict XIII (Pedro de Luna) deposed and installed
Martin V in Rome. The church never fully recovered its
political power.

The
Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite has provided Masons and
the public with the text of the papal letter HUMANUM GENUS of
Pope Leo XIII, dated April 20, 1884, which vilifies Masonry
and the "Spirit of the Age." Most ages, including our own,
earn the condemnation of moralists. We need think little
before we produce a long list of ills in our society which
demand correction. We can be quite specific. Leo XIII was
generally less specific.

He makes
up, however, what he lacks in specificity about Masonry with
expansive claims for the Church. He equates the Kingdom of God
on Earth with the Church he heads. Unfortunately, newspapers
daily remind us of the failure of a variety of churches and
religious leaders of a wide variety of persuasions to come up
to the standards of God or even those of their own religious
bodies. Amid vague and inadmissible charges, such as doing
Satan's work, the real anger of Pope Leo XIII is showntoward
the end of the missive.

Masons, he
declares, seduce people away from their proper rulers and
promote usurpers. In a way, familiar to Americans, this charge
is true. Certainly Washington, and a host of other organizers
and achievers of American independence were Freemasons. The
same was true in Italy. Garibaldi and others were Masons and,
in creating a unified Italy form a myriad of tiny kingdoms,
duchies and republics, they displaced the Pope as an earthly
monarch.

The Papal
States, once ruled by the Pope, became part of a national
Italy. Unfortunately, the Church failed to appreciate that
this divestiture may have been far more beneficial to the
Roman Church than maintenance of its temporal establishment.
By ridding itself of the political administration of its
territories, the care of its frontiers and the wars Cesare
Borgia and Pope Julian II seemed to enjoy fighting, the Roman
Catholic Church may now devote all its energies and resources
to expressing the love of God which we see in Jesus Christ.

In this
endeavor, Freemasonry wishes them every success.Freemasonry
has recently come under widespread attack from religious
bodies, especially in Great Britain. The Methodist Church
there has forbidden use of their facilities for Masonic
activities. The Synod of the Church of England has adopted a
report critical of Masonry, although a critic recently called
the Church of England "a stronghold of Freemasonry for more
than 200 years. (Knight, Stephen, The Brotherhood, Dorset
Press, 1984, p. 240.)

The Free
Church of Scotland condemned the Fraternity, although
newspaper accounts of their discussions reported that the
speakers said they did not know much about Masonry. The Church
ofScotland, which numbers many Masons among its ministers,
condemned Masonry at its 1989 General Assembly. Why have
modern churches with histories of benign relationships with
Freemasonry suddenly become frightened about the religion and
ethics of the Craft? This recent concern on the part of
British churches follows the literary efforts of Stephen
Knight. His Jack the Ripper:

The Final
Solution, published in 1976, (London; Grafton Books) alleged
that the Ripper murders were the result of a monstrous Masonic
conspiracy, involving royalty and high level government and
police officials. According to Knight, the plot was designed
to rescue the Duke of Clarence, oldest son of the Prince of
Wales, and second in line to the throne, from an ill-advised,
secret marriage to a Catholic girl living in Whitechapel, the
sector of the London slums where the murders were committed.
The daughter of this marriage, a Roman Catholic, was therefore
third in line to the throne.

The times
were politically unstable, if not outright republican. If the
marriage and the birth of the child were to become public
knowledge, abundant tinder would be heaped upon the smoldering
embers of revolution. The murders, Knight contended, were to
silence the women who knew about the marriage. Knight's
attempts to prove that the victims were murdered in strict
conformity with Masonic ritual are, at best, silly. His
rationale of the mechanics of the murdersdefies logic.

However,
the book was scandalous enough to sell well and written well
enough to create an air of paranoia with regard to the
Craft. Knight followed the success of Jack the Ripper: The
Final Solution with The Brotherhood, (Op. cit) expanding the
attack on Freemasonry on a wide front. He charged that in
England Masonry has corrupted law enforcement, the courts of
justice, banking, employment practices and social life.

These
charges have vague references and cannot be verified or
refuted. However, in the case of "Operation Countryman,"
Knight was correct to point out that a series of crimes
committed in London between 1971 and 1977 had involved the
collaboration of police officials and common criminals, all of
whom were Masons. Personal efforts to obtain an official
report on "Operation Countryman" from Scotland Yard have
met with silence.

The Rev.
Cyril Barker Cryer, secretary of Quatuor Coronati Lodge No.
2076, advises that no government "white paper" was published.
Knight is particularly severe in the area of religion. He
contends that Masonry is nothing short of Devil worship, a
religion with its own distinct god, described at times as "The
Great Architect of the Universe." It should be noted that the
description of God as "The Great Architect of the Universe" is
not a Masonic innovation, but is a representation from art of
the Church of the Middle Ages.

It is
unlikely that the more malignant critics of Freemasonry can
ever be satisfied. Trying to cut the cloth of our ancient
order to fit their tastes would certainly be a waste of time.
On the other hand, we have an obligation to our Craft and to
ourselves and to the dignity and demonstrable compatibility of
the Craft with Christianity, Judaism and the other great
religions of the world to correct those elements which were
either ill-considered or which might seem to dilute our faith
or offend the religious sensibilities of members of the Craft.

We should
certainly be concerned about the growing number of respected
Christian denominations who have, in the wake of Knight's
"revelations," adopted condemnations of our Fraternity. Our
churches, although they no longer have the influence in
society they once enjoyed, are most important in the life and
for the family of the sort of man we wish every Mason to be.

Every
Mason who reads the reports of these concerned denominations,
especially when it is his own denomination, if he takes his
church and what it does or says seriously, will be moved to
judge the validity of the criticisms of the Craft by his
church. Each Mason who is a member of a church which denounces
the Masonic Order must decide for himself whether or not an
association that uniformly preaches friendship, truth,
morality and brotherly love and practices those virtues, human
nature being what it is, somewhat less uniformly is compatible
with the fundamentals of his faith and the claims propounded
by his particular denomination. Knight's accusations are
highly charged emotionally, and, human nature being what it
is, a few Brethren within our ranks will be moved to leave.

As an
ordained minister of the United Methodist Church, many of
whose Bishops, ministers and other leaders are and have been
members of the Craft, I feel that Freemasonry and Christianity
are not only compatible, but that Freemasonry provides a
practical means of putting into effect many of the great
teachings of the Christian faith. I hope that Jewish and
Muslim Brothers and those of other faiths feel the same about
their religious and Masonic obligations and practices.

Is the
criticism of Masonry justified? Have others whose vocation or
avocation is religious leadership wondered about the meaning
or significance of Masonic ritual and practice. Certainly
Methodist, Episcopal and Presbyterian criticism of the Royal
Arch ritual should not be rejected without examining the
challenged portion to see if there is something to be
corrected, not because it was criticized, but because,
according to our own standards of reason, religion and
Masonry, it should be corrected.

Americans
and Britons will remember how difficult it was for the
thirteen American colonies to obtain a serious and discerning
hearing for their criticisms of their relationship to the
Mother Country. In the heat of that communications effort,
Patrick Henry said, "Caesar had his Brutus, Charles I had his
Cromwell, and George III...." When the cries of, "Treason,"
subsided, he continued, "And George III may profit from their
example.

History
also reminds us of the shortsightedness of Marie Antoinette
and Louis XVI, as well as the false security of Czar Nicholas
II. No Mason desires a conflict between his Craft and his
church or synagogue. However, churches are composed of human
beings and have the capacity to be wrong. They frequently
exercise that capacity, by engaging in witch hunts, the
slaughter of heretics and religious wars, to say nothing of
the petty imperfections of individual persons and
congregations.

We are,
therefore, under no moral or logical compulsion to change
anything just because a group of mortals, albeit a church, so
decrees. However, we should not hesitate to amend our ritual,
our rules or our accustomed practices where such amendment
will bring us closer to the principles of Masonry or tend to
make instruction in and the practice of Masonry more
effective.

If the
current controversy prompts us to a beneficially critical look
at our ritual, they have done us a good turn. The questions
raised have sent me back to Bible and books with the result
that I feel very strongly that examination of our ritual and
the assumptions upon which the ritual is built brings to light
concepts which should be amended by Masonry itself, without
regard to the approval or disapproval of others.

Rather
than responding to the whole array of criticism of Masonry on
religious grounds, let us take the one that generated much of
the heat in recent debate, the ritual of the Royal Arch
Degree. He contends that in the ritual, "The name of the Great
Architect of the Universe is revealed as JAH-BUL-ON - not a
general term open to any interpretation an individual
Freemason might choose, but a precise supernatural being -
compound deity composed of three separate personalities fused
in one. ("Ibid., p. 236.)

Knight
explains JAH-BUL-ON as follows: Jah (or Jahweh) is identified
as the God of the Hebrews, Bul (or Baal) as the Canaanite
fertility God and On as the Egyptian god Osiris. He quotes
Albert Pike (1883) as saying, "No man or body of men can make
me accept as a sacred word, in part composed of the name of an
accursed and beastly heathen god, whose name has been for more
than two thousand years an appellation of the Devil."(Ibid.,
pp. 236 f).

The Church
of England echoed Knight's contentions with the headline,
"Aspects of Masonic ritual condemned as blasphemous." (Church
Times, London: G. J. Palmer & Sons, No. 6488, p. 1). The
working group appointed to study Freemasonry for the General
Synod concluded, inter alia, "that JAHBULON, the name or
description of God which appears in all the rituals is
blasphemous."Ibid.

They
contended that the name of God must not be taken in vain or
combined with those of pagan deities. Their data and
conclusions are both mistaken, but they do suggest an area for
careful appraisal by Royal Arch Masons. The principal
objections, by Biblical and historical standards, to our
present practice in Royal Arch Masonry are set forth below.

1. Matters
of Fact: The ritual states that Jah, Bel and On are the name
of Deity in Syriac, Chaldean and Egyptian. This is not true.
It would be more accurate to say that Jah, Bel and On are
thought to be the names of Syriac, Chaldean and Egyptian gods,
but even this conclusion is inaccurate, as described below.

a.
Syriac: There is no evidence to suggest that Syriac existed at
the time of the rebuilding of the Temple. Syriac is an Aramaic
dialect used in Edessa (north of Mesopotamia and a sometime
Crusader dominion) and in western Mesopotamia. "It was similar
to, but not identical with, the Aramaic dialect used in
Palestine during the time of Jesus and his apostles." (The
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, New York: Abingdon
Press, 1962, Vol. 4, p. 754a).

The
earliest written Syriac, fragments of the New Testament, dates
from the 2nd Century A.D., the earliest Syriac Old Testament
was written in the 3rd Century A.D.) In contrast with Syriac,
the use of Aramaic as a colloquial language was acquired by
Jewish exiles and would have been widely known at the time of
rebuilding the Temple. Nehemiah 8:8,

"So they
read in the book of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and
caused them to understand the reading," may refer to an
Aramaic paraphrase of the Hebrew Scriptures. (Ibid., Vol. 4,
p. 749a.) "Jah" does not appear in the Bible except as a
prefix or suffix, is the preliterary name of God used by the
southern Hebrew tribes, and at the time of the rebuilding of
the Temple the term was well-established as a Hebrew
abbreviation of the name of the Covenant Deity. It is not the
name of Deity in the Syriac language.

b. Chaldee: The once
powerful Babylonian Empire had been crushed by the time of the
rebuilding of the Temple. The survivors were called Chaldeans.
In the Chaldean language, Bel or Baal, from the Akkadian root
belu, means "he who possesses, subdues or rules," and always
refers to Marduk, the state-god of Babylon. Bel is the
Mesopotamian equivalent of the Canaanitish God, Baal, the
principal god of the indigenous Palestinians at the time of
rebuilding the Temple. Because of its bitter religious and
social connotations, Bel cannot have been used to refer to
Deity by our Companions who rebuilt the Temple.(Videibid.,
Vol. 1, p. 376.; Cf. B. Davidson, Analytic Hebrew andChaldee
Lexicon, London: Samuel Bagster, n.d., 1963, p.
85.)

c.
Egyptian: The use of On in our ritual is probably based on
Genesis 41:45, 50 and 46:20 which refer to Asenath, wife of
Joseph and daughter of Potipherah, "priest of On." Apparently,
the author or authors of the ritual understood the "On" in
these passages to refer to an Egyptian god, On. Instead, On,
in Egyptian, means Sun.

The
Egyptians did not call the Sun god On. In the Old Kingdom Re
was the sun god. In later syncretism, the term was Amon-Re. A
major effort at monotheism was made, about 1375 B.C., by
Pharaoh Amen-hotep IV, who changed his name to Akh-en-Aton and
concentrated worship in Aton, the sun disc. The failure of the
effort is reflected by the change of the name of Pharaoh
Tut-ankh-Aton to Tut-ankh-Amon.

In the
Biblical passages quoted, "On" is a place name, an Egyptian
city whose better known Greek name is Heliopolis. The less
familiar Hebrew equivalent is Beth-shemesh.However, it is
important to note that in the Septuagint, the translation
(285-245 B.C.) of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, the
Tetragrammaton of Exodus 3:14 is translated into a Greek word
pronounced "ha own.

"
ThisGreek word can be literally translated, "Being," and
itself gives scope to much interesting interpretation.2.
Historical Setting: At the rebuilding of the Temple, which we
commemorate in the Royal Arch degree, the strife between
Israel and her neighbors was intense. This fact is
commemorated in the ritual of Cryptic Masonry where, based on
Nehemiah 4:13-22, the builders of Zerubbabel's Temple are
described as using a sword for defense and a trowel for
construction. It is inconceivable that our ancient Companions
would have engaged in a ceremony using the words, Jah, Bel and
On, however innocent such practice might seem in our
enlightened age.

To a large
degree, the Old Testament, especially the writings of the
Prophets, is a history of the conflict to keep the identity
and worship of God clearly defined and free from contamination
with pagan contamination. The Prophets made the choice clear.
On one hand was (and is) the unseen monotheistic God of Israel
(honored in the Shema, "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is
one Lord...,"Deuteronomy 6:4.) and whose name was too holy to
be pronounced.

Opposing
were the pagan gods, tangible, fabricated and dominated by
their human creators and transported like baggage.Isaiah 46.
Isaiah reminds us, "Remember this and consider, recall it to
mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is none like me...."46:8,9. Without
doubt, the use of Jah-Bel-On would have been far more
offensive to our ancient Brothers and Companions at the
rebuilding of the Temple than it may be to our present
critics. In a word, they would have been horrified.

Admittedly, early Hebrews appropriated the word
Baal, meaning "lord" or "owner", as a name of Deity, in spite
of its ascription by their enemies to the Canaanitish god of
storm and fertility. Saul named a son Esh-baal, meaning "Man
of Baal,"I Chronicles 8:33 and 9:39. and David named a child
Beeliada, meaning "Baal knows."

(I
Chronicles 14:7.) Significantly, Eshbaal's name was changed to
Ishbosheth (Man of Shame), (2 Samuel 2:8 et seq.) and David
changed the name of the child to Eliada, "God knows" (II
Samuel 5:16). It was difficult for prophets, such as Elijah,
to draw a line between Yahweh and Baal in the minds of the
populace. Especially under the leadership of highly placed
Baal worshipers such as Queen Jezebel, many actually abandoned
Yahweh. By the time of the Prophets, Baal and his worship
were anathema to orthodox Jewish leaders.

The
irreconcilable strife between Jah, Jahweh or Jehovah and Baal
or Bel may best be illustrated by the contest on Mt. Carmel
between Elijah (note the Jah in his name) and the priests of
Baal (I Kings 18), and by the denunciations of the Book of
Hosea.

At the
time of rebuilding the Temple, the conflict between the
Companions who worshiped Yahweh and the worshipers of Baal
was, at best, intermittent warfare.Our ancient Companions, who
rebuilt the Temple and whom we seek to emulate, could not be
comfortable with our ritual. Similarly, the Companions of the
Grand Chapter of England have eliminated all references to
pagan deities from their ritual. Let us see if the critics of
Freemasonry respond with equivalent understanding, tolerance
and consideration.

Send us in confidence details of cases where you think
Organized Freemasonry has personally hurt yourself,
family, friends, aquaintances, or community. We would
also appreciate any additional background information,
links, and references on Freemasonry and the Occult.
Help us take a bite out of Freemasonry.